The Basics

If there is one concept that drives much of divide in the GMO debate, it’s substantial equivalence. Having different understandings or misunderstandings of the concept leads to rancor, distrust and talking past each other.

Guest Author: Andrew Kniss
In March, 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced that glyphosate would be added to their list of agents that are “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Glyphosate wasn’t the only pesticide added to the list, but as Nathanael Johnson noted at Grist, glyphosate tends to be something of a lightning rod due to its association with genetically engineered (Roundup Ready) crops. Let me start by pointing out I’m pretty late to the party writing about this.

GUEST AUTHOR: Iida Ruishalme
In my series 17 Questions about Glyphosate, last but not least comes a post about the integrity of research, how funding may influence research results, and what corporate involvement with scientists may entail. And if scientists mostly are not influenced by industry, why are there so many conflicting study results?

GUEST AUTHOR: Iida Ruishalme
In my series 17 Questions about Glyphosate, question 14. deals with glyphosate-resistant weeds: whether they pose a problem, and why campaigners against glyphosate should be the last ones to worry about this particular issue. Question 15. looks at the soil ecosystems: what do we know about the effects of glyphosate on soil micro-organisms? Does it affect nutrient balance and mineral uptake? Plus comments on what one troubled study found out about earthworms. Question 16. delves into whether there is a relationship between glyphosate and the situation of Monarch butterflies or bees.

Guest Author: Iida Ruishalme
Series 17 Questions about Glyphosate! In questions 7-11 I go through the evidence for whether glyphosate can be detected, and if so then in which quantities, in each of the following: air and rainwater, urine, breastmilk, wine, and wheat. I have also added extra sections on glyphosate in honey, vaccines, and tampons.

Question 12. delves into the common verbal images of farmers ‘drenching’ their fields in pesticides, and how much farmers actually use.

GUEST AUTHOR: Iida Ruishalme
The pesticides in use today are significantly less toxic than those used even a few decades ago, and despite what many might think, glyphosate is actually among the safest of the bunch. If you look at the doses that have proven lethal to half of the laboratory animals tested, the so called Lethal Dose 50 (LD50), you find that some of the most common organic herbicides, such as clove oil, acetic acid, and cinnamon oil, are also more toxic than glyphosate. In fact, when it comes to the lethal dose, even table salt is more toxic than glyphosate

GUEST AUTHOR: Iida Ruishalme
Hearing science-speak conclusions like “failure to show adverse effects”, or “no correlation found”, or “not likely to pose risk” often leaves a layman out cold in the mists of the inherent scientific uncertainty. For our everyday logic, there is a threshold of such little perceived risk, where we simply declare something safe. But science holds fast to the humble intellectual honesty of saying “despite all our best efforts, there is still a very slim chance of an effect that could become evident in some unknown context in the future”. That may make our everyday brains feel uneasy.

GUEST AUTHOR: Iida Ruishalme
In my series 17 Questions about Glyphosate, question 4. looks at glyphosate and its potential to affect our gut bacteria. This is one of the favourite returning points for many who find the newness of the field of microbiome research a reason be extra cautious, and in the process, sometimes jump into some rather hasty conclusions.

GUEST AUTHOR: Iida Ruishalme
In my series 17 Questions about Glyphosate, question 2. looks at glyphosate and health effects, and also at what role surfactants might play in some of the results. *Added: Information about glyphosate breakdown product AMPA, and a section on endocrine disruptor claims and Seralini, et al. Question 3. looks at the colourful claims computer scientist Stephanie Seneff has produced by running samples of the scientific literature through her computer algorithms.